Category Archives: Conservatism

Mainstream Conservatism Is A “Big Con,” If You Care To Sweat The Philosophical Details

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Free Speech, Left-Liberalism, Private Property

I quit reading this article, sent by a friend, when I reached this “conservative’s'” typical leftist outrage over thought crimes, as in, “One racist is two racists too many.”

This is a thought no classical conservative or classical liberal would ever utter, much less entertain. We don’t care what’s in your head.

The article is mostly guff.

As a libertarian, I don’t give a tinker’s toss who people hate, so long as they don’t hit them. As a strict propertarian, I support your right not to serve me if you don’t like Jews.

Now that’s freedom. Now that’s a society based on private property rights. And that’s why Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act.

The “Big Con,” as my friend Jack Kerwick calls e-conservatives.

Conservatism Or Celebrity Driven Cretinism?

Celebrity, Conservatism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

Were American conservatism alive and well in media and on the idiot’s lantern (the teli), Dr. Paul Gottfried (and not the next sexy girl or “girly-boy” with chipmunk voices and talking points) would be its voice:

“… What clearly differentiated the conservative movement of bygone years from what has taken its place was a willingness to express sharp internal disagreement and to defend conflicting positions with passion and high learning. This is not to say that the conservative movement tolerated all dissent. It featured one dogma that no member of the inner circle was allowed to dispute: anti-Communism and as a corollary, a vigorous struggle against the Soviets as the leading Communist adversary. But otherwise there was remarkably open debate, and those who participated in it received no conceivable earthly reward, such as lucrative book contracts, invitations to appear on Fox as an all-star or a column in the Washington Post. Being conservative back then was about standing one’s ground not only against the Left but also against other self-described conservatives; and the warrior took positions entirely out of principle.”

“Today conservative celebrities often seem obsessively concerned about positioning themselves in a way that allows them to advance their careers. This came to mind while I was looking at Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West, a sprawling collection of mainstream political views for which the author picked the title of a very contentious book written by James Burnham, a giant of the post-World War II American Right. I doubt that there’s even a single page in Burnham’s book, first published in 1964, which would not enrage today’s thought police. Burnham spoke critically about human rights rhetoric and argued that the Civil Rights Revolution, which had only begun then, would lead to more, not less, racial discord. As I now read over Burnham’s views of an earlier era, it seems that I’m looking at something that arrived from a different planet.”

“Goldberg and Burnham grew up in very different cultures, which may help explain why Goldberg’s opinions often seem to have come out of left field. He defends government-enforced affirmative action for blacks, even while counterfactually depicting himself as a libertarian. Moreover, Goldberg “thinks” but never shows that accelerated immigration from Third World countries is helping to raise the living standards of American workers. But let me resist the impulse to be overly critical. Goldberg is trying to make it in a conservative movement that is entirely different from the one that Burnham helped shape.”

“In the 1960s there was no conservative media or massive donor base that rewarded conservative journalists with TV appearances and raised them to national celebrity. William F. Buckley was an exception to this rule, but I don’t remember any other self-proclaimed conservative whom one got to see very often on TV. The present conservative movement requires its stars to accept certain consensus positions that all nice people are supposed to hold, e.g., never speaking out against gay marriage or “moderate” feminism. Although the same stars hope to market themselves as “conservatives,” they also feel obliged to engage in virtue-signaling, for example, by attacking white racism and praising the civil rights revolution almost ritualistically. On November 27, Laura Ingraham spent a large part of her evening program on Fox gushing with joy over the forthcoming wedding of Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle. When a black guest asked Laura if she noticed that Meghan was part black, she feigned offense that someone would even bring up that subject. Fox-Insider tried to make it appear that Laura bested her guest by exclaiming “Must we put our racial hangups on the happy couple?” Needless to say, the guest had figured out the real motive for Laura’s weird outburst of joy. …”

… READ THE REST. The complete column, “A Conservatism of Principle” by Paul Gottfried, is on American Thinker.

UPDATED (6/13): A New Kind Of Bi-Partisan Non-thinking

Celebrity, Conservatism, Democrats, Left-Liberalism, Political Philosophy

Wikipedia calls Candace Owens an “American conservative commentator, and activist.

I call Samantha Bee a smarmy, left-liberal—one among many—who purports to do comedy.

Yet the aforementioned Owens calls Bee a “liberal thinker.” (I believe that such a pronouncement was made on Martha MacCallum’s “The Story,” or on another of those interchangeable programs.)

The above is a new kind of non-thinking.

So is the self-explanatory Samantha-Bee contretemps below:

Bee came under fire for calling Ivanka Trump a cunt. “You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child,” Bee said as the photo flashed onto the screen, “but let me just say, one mother to another: Do something about your dad’s immigration practices, you feckless cunt! He listens to you!”

The moment faced harsh criticism, both from the White House, which called her statement “vile and vicious,” and from some on the left, who argued that calling women “cunts” reduces them to their genitalia and is a slur that’s meant to teach women that their bodies are disgusting and shameful. (Bee also received praise from others on the left, who argued that cunt is just a word and that the real issue is Donald Trump’s immigration practices.) In the wake of the backlash, Bee tweeted an apology to both Ivanka Trump and her viewers, saying, “I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.”

UPDATE (6/13):

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE IS Chris Cuomo, part of CNN’s thought-police enforcement. Here he goes after Republican Corey Stewart, who’s for the working man, by… calling Stewart a white supremacist and a racist. Is that’s all the filthy libs have?

UPDATED (6/1): Ron Unz Spills The Beans About Another Typical, Parasitical, DC Non-Meritocratic Non-Profit

Conservatism, Ethics, Etiquette, libertarianism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Racism

“Over the years, various people have expressed curiosity about” Ron Unz’s firing from The American Conservative, now a crypto-liberal, wishy-washy publication.

I was one of the curious. So, the great Ron Unz, now publisher of the far more successful Unz Review has obliged in “Why The American Conservative Purged Its Own Publisher.”

Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, beloved of “rightist” libertarians, certainly rejected my copy since 2006. My last piece in TAC was in 2006: “Mackinnon’s Textual Harassment.” “American Creed” was an earlier piece, hardly shabby.

But that’s nothing. It’s one thing to reject controversial copy from independent, unaffiliated scribes. The same “editor” rejected his publisher’s not-insubstantial essays. Oh the sanctimony! Oh the pomposity!

Next, McCarthy, in his self-righteous sanctimony (it bears repeating), tells publisher Ron—he who pays the piper—that his “analytical study of American urban crime” belongs in a White Nationalist hate-site!

Still, The American Conservative, remarks the intellectually honest Mr. Unz, had “a uniquely vigorous opposition to Bush’s foreign wars.” As did I, starting on 9/19/2002. Yet TAC, and most libertarian outlets, for the most, could be relied on to reject my own (dare I say powerful?) anti-war copy.

Conversely, Jason Richwine and political operative Jack Hunter were embraced by TAC, but not Ron Unz’s work (and certainly not my own, whose writings preceded the first two youngsters by at least a decade). I wonder why?

Hunter, says Mr. Unz, brought with him to TAC the usual libertarian worship of Ron and Rand Paul. (Oh, I see: I’ve criticized the two plenty although I like ’em. Libertarians pray to their sacred cows like mainstream. I believe it was Karen De Coster who once blurted out, in frustration, “They’re still politicians, for heaven’s sake.”)

The late Larry Auster eviscerated the “founding editor of The American Conservative,” calling Scott McConnell “The Paleostinian Conservative,” and pointing out that McConnell “twice endorsed Obama for president yet continued to call himself a conservative.”

As Ron Unz details—and following the funding model of DC Swamp think tanks and their websites—The American Conservative spent their benefactor’s money on hiring their kids and hiking salaries. That’s how the non-meritocratic swamp works.

Duly, Mr. Unz soon noted the “large growth in TAC’s operating expenses, staffing levels being disproportionate to actual output, minimal workload required and full-time editorial and business employees.” What a gig if you can get it!

Look, talent that writes in the tradition of the Old Right could be syndicated in every paleoconservative or paleolibertarian publication there is. We could mount a fight against mainstream if we united and were not afraid to harness talent and let it do what talent does. We’d get the readers. Instead, each Old Right publication fortifies itself in some atrophying, barely read ideological attic, deluding itself that it has a reach.

Total solipsism.

Each of our webzines or print magazines puts on airs and graces, rejecting talent (for some reason) and sticking with the comfort zone.

Just like the mainstream, our side reverts to the compliant, mediocre mean.

We on the Old Right are losers because our think-tanks and publications, such that they are, divide and expunge, while the neocons and the cons unite and dominate. I mean, who reads Mona Charen, yet she remains a syndicated feature because the monied gate-keepers want it that way.

UPDATE (6/1):

“The nadir [on TAC] was The Southern Avenger lecturing us on how bad blacks and gays have it.”

Tom Piatak At Chronicles writes:

Rod Dreher [of TAC] used his perch at The American Conservative to attack one of the men who founded that magazine, Pat Buchanan. Dreher charged that Buchanan’s column from the previous Tuesday, “If We Erase Our History, Who Are We?”, was a “shameful defense of white supremacy,” “abhorrent,” and “disgusting, racist, indefensible.”